Speech (committee meeting)

{
    "time": "2012-02-07 12:00:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Ms. Fran\u00e7oise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP)",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"2690147\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Thank you, Mr. Chairman.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2690148\" data-originallang=\"fr\">This is always a very interesting aspect. I remember that in my criminal law classes my fellow law students found this one of the most interesting topics, because there is a large measure of subjectivity and objectivity in this. So finding the proper equilibrium in all of that is not always an easy task.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2690149\" data-originallang=\"fr\">My colleagues have already broached the points I wanted to raise, but I would simply like you to reassure me. When you developed the new criteria in clause 34.1, was this after studying all of the criteria that had already been established in jurisprudence?</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2690150\" data-originallang=\"fr\">My concern is the following. When defence attorneys look at the changes to the legislation, they will certainly examine jurisprudence and the criteria and grounds that have been invoked to claim self-defence. In fact, that is based to some extent on existing caselaw. Can we be reasonably certain that all of this was looked at, so that we do not wind up with costs, so that people don't say that this was already pleaded successfully and that the legislator did not include it again? </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2690151\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Would that be an indication that those are not grounds to be considered? Do you understand what I am trying to say? Did you look at all of the criteria? That does not mean that the list is exhaustive, because there could be others in years to come, but I am referring to what existed before and to current jurisprudence.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"2690147\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Merci, monsieur le pr\u00e9sident.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2690148\" data-originallang=\"fr\">C'est certainement toujours int\u00e9ressant \u00e0 regarder. Je me souviens de mes cours de droit criminel o\u00f9 c'\u00e9tait l'une des sections les plus int\u00e9ressantes \u00e0 \u00e9tudier pour des \u00e9tudiants en droit parce qu'il y a une bonne part de subjectivit\u00e9 et d'objectivit\u00e9 \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard. Donc, le fait de trouver le bon \u00e9quilibre \u00e0 l'int\u00e9rieur de tout cela n'est pas toujours \u00e9vident.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2690149\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Mes coll\u00e8gues ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 touch\u00e9 un peu aux points que je voulais mentionner, mais je veux seulement \u00eatre rassur\u00e9e. Lorsque vous avez \u00e9tabli les nouveaux crit\u00e8res au sein de la nouvelle section 34.1, \u00e9tait-ce suite \u00e0 une nomenclature de tous les crit\u00e8res qui avaient d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9tablis en mati\u00e8re de jurisprudence?</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2690150\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Mon inqui\u00e9tude est la suivante. Lorsque les procureurs de la d\u00e9fense vont regarder les changements \u00e0 la l\u00e9gislation, ils vont certainement regarder dans la jurisprudence ce qui existaient comme exemples de motifs de l\u00e9gitime d\u00e9fense et les crit\u00e8res qui \u00e9taient utilis\u00e9s. En fait, c'est \u00e9videmment un peu bas\u00e9 sur la jurisprudence existante. Pouvons-nous \u00eatre raisonnablement rassur\u00e9s qu'on a pas mal fait le tour pour ne pas se retrouver \u00e0 avoir des d\u00e9penses, dire que cela a d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9t\u00e9 plaid\u00e9 avec succ\u00e8s et que cela n'a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 repris par le l\u00e9gislateur? </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2690151\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Serait-ce une indication qu'il ne s'agit pas d'un motif? Je ne sais pas si vous comprenez ce que j'essaie de vous expliquer? Avons-nous fait le tour des crit\u00e8res? Cela ne signifie pas que ce soit exhaustif parce qu'il pourrait y en avoir d'autres au cours des prochaines ann\u00e9es, mais je parle par rapport \u00e0 ce qui existait ant\u00e9rieurement et \u00e0 la jurisprudence actuelle. </p>"
    },
    "url": "/committees/justice/41-1/18/francoise-boivin-1/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/francoise-boivin/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/4138/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "6523948",
    "document_url": "/committees/justice/41-1/18/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fcommittees%2Fjustice%2F41-1%2F18%2F"
    }
}